United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING PETITION
reviewed the habeas-corpus petition here, 28 U.S.C.S. §
2254 (2019), the Court concludes that it must be amended to
cure the below deficiencies if Petitioner wishes to further
pursue his claims.
possibly been supplemented by other potential claims in other
documents filed in this case by Petitioner. (Doc. Nos. 5, 10,
11, 14, 15 & 17.)
does not appear to observe the federal habeas-corpus standard
of review, which states:
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was
adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless
the adjudication of the claim--
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C.S. § 2254(d) (2019).
claims appearing to be based on the illegality of
Petitioner's current confinement; however, the petition
was apparently not submitted using the legal help Petitioner
is entitled to by his institution under the
Constitution--e.g., by contract attorneys. See Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996) (requiring prisoners be
given "'adequate law libraries or
adequate assistance from persons trained in the
law' . . . to ensure that inmates . . . have a reasonably
adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims
challenging their convictions or conditions of
confinement") (quoting Bounds v. Smith, 430
U.S. 817, 828 (1977) (emphasis added)).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an initial
pleading is required to contain "(1) a short and plain
statement of the grounds upon which the court's
jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader
seeks." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The requirements of Rule 8(a)
are intended to guarantee "that [respondents] enjoy fair
notice of what the claims against them are and the grounds
upon which they rest." TV Commc'ns Network, Inc.
v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F.Supp. 1062, 1069 (D. Colo. 1991),
aff'd, 964 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1992).
litigants are not excused from complying with Rule 8's
minimal pleading requirements. "This is so because a pro
se [litigant] requires no special legal training to recount
the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide
such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out
a claim on which relief can be granted." Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1009 (10th Cir. 1991). Moreover,
"it is not the proper function of the Court to assume
the role of advocate for a pro se litigant."
Id. at 1110. Thus, the Court may not "supply
additional facts, [or] construct a ...